A philosophy of singleness: part 3

Whitby Abbey and Saint Mary's Church, England (photo from trekearth.com)

There are some persons that downplay physical attraction’s importance in romantic relationships, and I am not one of those people. A few people that do not know me well have suggested that I am looking for a supermodel (supermodel type). They are incorrect and this is not an aspect of my romantic philosophy. At Chucky and Philosophy Man’s birthday party, a friend of Chucky’s sarcastically suggested to me that a certain supermodel was now single, but that she was probably too old for me. I am looking for a woman with whom I can have mutual spiritual, intellectual, and physical attraction. Some in my family would suggest that I should lower my physical standards in attraction, especially since I have doorman and not pretty boy looks. I attempt to look for a young woman that is at least minimally significantly physically attractive to me, and not maximally significantly attractive to me, but there must be significant physical attraction, although I view spiritual and intellectual mutual attraction as more important in romantic relationships. An important part of my work in theodicy is relevant here. Can I really be significantly satisfied by becoming romantically involved with a woman that is below my minimal physical standards? Are physical standards simply a matter of choice, or are they a matter of both nature and choice?

W. Tullian Tchividjian explains the view of Jonathan Edwards, where Edwards writes that people in their fallen state are freely able to choose what they most desire. Tchividjian (2001: 1). Edwards notes that because of corrupted human nature human beings are free only to sin. Tchividjian (2001: 2). Human beings therefore freely choose within their sinful nature to disobey God. The choices of acts made by human beings do not depart from the motives and desires which fuel them as the motives and desires come from human nature. Edwards (1754)(2006: 4.4: 3). Within Edwards' system God's sovereign will would influence the nature of the elect in order that they would have motives and desires leading to following Christ. John S. Feinberg reasons that desires and not free will are the cause of human rebellion against God. Feinberg (1994: 128). I speculate that human nature and consciousness (the ability to have self-awareness) does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. The primary cause of human acts is determined by God who creates the human nature, and influences human choices. The secondary cause of human acts is the individuals that act according to nature, consciousness, motives, desires, and a limited free will influenced by God. It may be correctly pointed out that what God determines and causes must necessarily (logically must occur) take place. However, I do not think that God coerces or forces individuals to commit actions.

My point here is that the desire known as physical attraction comes from our God given human nature, and consciousness, and is expressed in motives, desires, and a limited free will where by which we make our choices. In general terms, and not only with physical attraction, God is willing what occurs in an individual by influence, and willingly allows the person to sin for God's divine purposes. God can also influence both the regenerate and unregenerate person for his purposes. Physical attraction can be traced back to an individual’s nature. By nature an individual will not be attracted to each and every person of the opposite sex. It seems that most persons are not attracted to the majority of persons of the opposite sex. A problem is that sin greatly complicates the matter. A partial remedy I have for this problem is for Christians who are single to only hold out for those they find minimally significantly physically attractive within their own nature, consciousness and desires.

Therefore the person can choose a person to potentially date that is minimally significantly physically attractive and pay more attention to the spiritual and intellectual aspects of the person. I reason that far too many Christians, especially ones considered very attractive in Western society, are rejecting those for which they have minimal significant physical attraction, in favour of those for which they have closer to maximal significant physical attraction. These persons may at times ignore spiritual and intellectual qualities in others. It is therefore no surprise that from my findings on dating sites and interaction with Christians personally, that many Christians date and marry non-believers, since Christians are a minority in Western society and it would be more difficult in the Christian community than in secular society, to find someone close to the standard of maximally significantly physically attractive. It would also be easier to meet minimal standards in the secular world, but the secular world cannot provide persons that spiritually and intellectually belong to Christ.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.http://www.jonathanedwards.com/

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.